text:
FR Doc E8-17529[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44939-44945]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
17 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 145
Confidential Information and Commission Records and Information
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, reproposal.
SUMMARY: On July 20, 2007, the Commission published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the procedures under
which designated contract markets (DCMs), derivatives clearing
organizations (DCOs), and derivatives transaction execution facilities
(DTEFs) (collectively, ``registered entities'') may request
confidential treatment for products and rules submitted via
certification procedures or for Commission review and approval under
parts 40 and 41 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ Under the proposed
amendments to Commission regulation 40.8, registered entities filing
product and rule submissions would follow a procedure separate from the
customary Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) confidential treatment
procedures specified in Commission regulation 145.9, 17 CFR 145.9. As
proposed to be amended, regulation 40.8(c) provided that: registered
entities submitting material under parts 40 and 41 would be required to
file a detailed written justification simultaneously with the request
for confidential treatment; registered entities submitting material
under parts 40 and 41 would be required to segregate material for which
confidential treatment is requested in an appendix to the submission;
and Commission staff may make an initial determination to grant or deny
confidential treatment to such material before receiving a request
under the FOIA. Regulation 40.8(c) is being reproposed to clarify that
an initial determination by staff to deny confidential treatment may be
appealed to the Commission's Office of General Counsel and that such an
appeal will stay release of the material. The Commission believes these
amendments, by creating a separate confidential treatment review
process for filings under parts 40 and 41, will enhance the
Commission's ability to provide the public with immediate access to
non-confidential information.
\1\ 72 FR 39764 (July 20, 2007).
The Commission received comments from three registered entities in
response to the proposed rulemaking.\2\ Two commenters expressed
concerns with the amendments themselves and questioned the adequacy of
the Commission's explanation for proposing the changes. In response to
those comments, the Commission has determined to re-propose the
amendments to regulation 40.8 to: clarify the procedure for seeking
review of an adverse determination; amend appendix D to part 40 by
adding to the submission cover sheet a box to be checked if
confidential treatment is requested for any part of the underlying
submission, in order to assist staff in efficiently and accurately
posting publicly available information on the Commission's Web site;
and amend Commission regulation 145.9(b) to clarify that its procedures
for requesting confidential treatment do not apply to submissions filed
under parts 40 and 41. The Commission further intends in this
reproposal to more fully address its reasons for the proposed
amendments and to explain the distinction between the proposed
procedure and the procedures specified in regulation 145.9.
\2\ Letter dated August 20, 2007 from CME Group (CME); Letter
dated August 20, 2007 from CBOE Futures Exchange (CFE); Letter dated
August 23, 2007 from New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (NYMEX).
DATES: Submit comments on or before September 2, 2008. Comments
previously submitted need not be resubmitted.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Mail/Hand Deliver: David Stawick, Secretary of the
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
E-mail: [email protected]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Nathan, Senior Special Counsel,
(202) 418-5133, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20581. Electronic mail: [email protected] This document is also
available at http://www.regulations.gov.
I. Background
A. Overview
Part 40 of the Commission's regulations sets forth the standards
and procedures to be followed by registered entities \3\ for listing
products for trading by certification to the Commission; voluntary
submission of new products for Commission review and approval;
amendments to terms or conditions of enumerated agricultural contracts;
voluntary submission of rules for Commission review and approval; and
self-certification of rules by DCMs and DCOs. Part 41 of the
regulations provides standards and procedures for filing required
information with respect to security futures products. Although much of
the information required by parts 40 and 41 is made public by statute,
regulation or agency practice, the Commission has observed an increase
over the past several years in the number of confidential treatment
requests for filings submitted under these parts. Most, but not all of
these requests for confidential treatment have been submitted to the
Commission in connection with market maker and other incentive programs
(collectively, incentive programs).\4\
\3\ A registered entity is defined in section 1a(29) of the
Commodity Exchange Act (Act) as a DCM under section 5 of the Act
(including section 5f), a DTEF registered under section 5a of the
Act, and a DCO registered under section 5b of the Act. Section 5f of
the Act, along with part 41 of the Commission's regulations,
establishes requirements for national securities exchanges, national
securities associations and alternative trading systems registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission to notice register with
the Commission in order to list security futures products (i.e.,
futures on a single equity security and futures on narrow-based
security indexes).
\4\ Incentive programs typically are created by a registered
entity to increase volume of trading and liquidity for new product
launches or in markets that for other reasons have low trading
volume. In general, registered entities have requested confidential
treatment for the name of the market maker(s), the compensation
arrangements provided by the registered entity, trade priorities
(i.e., percentage of the order flow), and the bid/ask spread level.
B. Freedom of Information Act
Most requests for confidential treatment are made pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA), which provides
generally that the public has a right of access to federal agency
records except to the extent such records, or portions of them, are
protected from disclosure by one or
[[Page 44940]]
more of nine exemptions.\5\ A registered entity requesting confidential
treatment under the FOIA typically asserts that the information
submitted to the Commission should be protected from disclosure
pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(4), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), because its
release will cause commercial or competitive harm to the submitter.\6\
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1)-(9).
\6\ Exemption (b)(4) of the FOIA protects trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is
privileged or confidential. See also Commission regulation
C. The Commission's Implementing Regulations
All agencies subject to the FOIA are required to establish rules,
procedures and standards for implementing that statute.\7\ The
Commission's FOIA rules are codified in part 145 of its regulations.
Commission regulation 145.9 sets forth the procedures for requesting
confidential treatment under the FOIA for information furnished to the
Commission and for challenging adverse determinations of such requests.
Under these provisions, a submitter must make, at the time of
submission, a written request for confidential treatment which
specifies the basis on which it believes confidential treatment is
warranted. Unless and until a FOIA request is made for the material,
however, no determination is made with respect to any request for
confidential treatment.\8\ When a FOIA request is received, the
submitter of the requested information is required to file a detailed
written justification of the confidential treatment request.\9\ If
staff initially determines that the request should be denied,
regulation 145.9 permits the submitter to file an appeal of that
initial decision with the Commission's Office of General Counsel.
Likewise, if staff initially determines to grant the request for
confidential treatment, a subsequent FOIA requester may appeal that
decision to the Office of General Counsel.
\7\ The FOIA requires that each agency promulgate regulations
governing, inter alia, the methods whereby the public may obtain
information, make submissions or obtain decisions as well as other
substantive and procedural FOIA regulations. 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
\8\ See 17 CFR 145.9(d)(10).
\9\ The guidelines and standards for preparing and filing a
detailed written justification are found in Commission regulation
Commission regulation 145.9 also permits the Commission to specify
``alternative procedures'' for ``a particular study, report,
investigation, or other matter.''\10\ Consistent with that authority,
the Commission is proposing to specify alternative procedures for
processing requests for confidential treatment of filings submitted
under parts 40 and 41 of the Commission's regulations.
\10\ Commission regulation 145.9(b).
II. The Proposed Amendments
A. Procedures for Requesting Confidential Treatment Under Parts 40 and
The Commission is proposing to add paragraph (c) to Commission
regulation 40.8 to establish the exclusive procedure to be followed by
registered entities when requesting confidential treatment for
information required to be filed under parts 40 and 41.\11\ The
Commission is also proposing to add paragraph (d) to regulation 40.8 to
make clear the circumstances under which requests for confidential
treatment will not be considered. Under the new procedure, the request
for confidential treatment and a detailed written justification must be
filed simultaneously with the submission, in the form and manner
prescribed by Commission regulation 145.9(e). Further, the material for
which confidentiality is claimed must be separated from the remainder
of the submission and filed as an appendix. Proposed regulation 40.8(c)
would permit Commission staff immediately to make an initial
determination to grant or deny confidential treatment rather than
deferring consideration until a FOIA request is received for the
information, and would allow the submitter to appeal an adverse
decision to the Commission's Office of General Counsel in the manner
prescribed by Commission regulation 145.9(g). Proposed regulation
40.8(c) would not preclude reconsideration of a confidential treatment
decision made under this regulation if a request for the material is
subsequently made under the FOIA. In such circumstances, the process
would be governed by the part 145 regulations.
\11\ The proposal also would add new regulations 40.2(a)(3)(iv),
40.6(a)(3)(vi), 41.23(a)(7), and 41.24(a)(6), and amend regulations
40.3(a)(7) and 40.5(a)(8) to direct the registered entity requesting
confidential treatment for submissions made under part 40 or 41 to
follow the new procedures specified in Commission regulation
The FOIA addresses tensions between the public's interest in access
to certain information and the government's (or in some circumstances,
the submitter's) interest in nondisclosure of sensitive information.
Accordingly, that statute generally is triggered by a request for
information from a member of the public, and the Commission's FOIA
regulation provides that submitters of information who have properly
requested confidential treatment need not file a detailed written
justification supporting that request unless they receive notice from
the Commission that it has received a FOIA request for that
information.\12\ Those tensions are not present here. On the contrary,
Congress included in the Act's core principles applicable to registered
entities requirements that DCMs, DCOs and DTEFs make certain
information available to the public,\13\ and the Commission
demonstrated its commitment to transparency by adopting a regulation
describing the types of information it considered publicly
available.\14\ In the Commission's view, the FOIA does not protect
public information, and the absence of a FOIA request should not be
permitted to delay or hinder its release of such information to the
public. Accordingly, under proposed regulation 40.8(c), Commission
staff may immediately analyze the merits of a detailed written
justification and balance the submitter's interest in confidentiality
against the Commission's interest in fostering transparency. The
Commission intends, and the re-proposed regulation clarifies, that the
procedure described in proposed regulation 40.8(c)(1) would expedite
the release of information to the public while continuing to afford a
registered entity the opportunity to challenge the denial of a
confidential treatment request. As re-proposed, regulation 40.8(c)
makes plain that the registered entity may follow the procedures
outlined in the Commission's general FOIA regulation to appeal a staff
denial of confidential treatment to the Commission's Office of General
Counsel.\15\ The re-proposed regulation further clarifies that a grant
of any part of a request for confidential treatment may be reconsidered
if a FOIA request for the same material subsequently is received by the
\12\ See Commission regulation 145.9(e)(1), 17 CFR 145.9(e)(1).
\13\ See section 5(a)(7) (DCM Core Principle 7); section
5b(2)(L) (DCO Core Principle L); and section 5a(d)(5) (DTEF Core
Principle 5).
\14\ See regulation 40.8(a).
\15\ See regulation 145.9(g), 17 CFR 145.9(g).
When a registered entity requests confidential treatment for an
entire submission filed under part 40 or 41, Commission staff
frequently asks the entity to amend its original submission by
segregating out the material for which it claims confidentiality so
that remaining materials can be made public without delay.\16\
Registered entities
[[Page 44941]]
generally have been receptive to these informal staff requests.
Proposed regulation 40.8(c)(2), which would require that material
deemed confidential be segregated in an appendix to the submission,
would codify this staff practice and enable the Commission to make
plainly non-confidential material immediately available to the public
while staff evaluates the registered entity's claims of confidentiality
for the segregated material.
\16\ The Commission's policy is to provide public availability
of submission information by posting submissions filed under parts
40 and 41 on the Commission's Web site as efficiently and accurately
as possible.
B. Public Availability of Terms and Conditions of Products and
Mechanisms for Executing Transactions on or Through the Facilities of
the Contract Market
As noted, substantial portions of the material filed pursuant to
parts 40 and 41 are required by statute to be made publicly available
by registered entities. Section 5(d)(7) of the Act--DCM Core Principle
7--requires that the terms and conditions of contracts and the
mechanisms for executing transactions on or through a DCM be made
available by the DCM to market authorities, market participants, and
the public.\17\ Similarly, DTEF Core Principle 5 requires that boards
of trade publicly disclose specified information, and Core Principle L
requires that DCOs make available to market participants information
concerning the rules and operating systems of clearing and settlement
systems. In 2004, the Commission added paragraph (a) to regulation 40.8
to specify the portions of DTEF, DCO and DCM applications which are
publicly available.\18\
\17\ Mechanisms for executing transactions generally include
such information as trading algorithms, market maker programs and
information from an exchange's rulebook that pertain to or impact
\18\ Publicly available portions include: Transmittal letter,
proposed rules, the applicant's regulatory compliance chart,
documents establishing the applicant's legal status, and documents
setting forth the applicant's governance structure. The Commission
noted that regulation 40.8(a) is not intended to limit the
information that may be released, but to specify the portions of an
application that are automatically public and therefore would not be
granted confidential treatment under any circumstances. 69 FR 67503
(Nov. 18, 2004).
Furthermore, regulations 40.3(a)(7) and 40.5(a)(8) specify that a
product's terms and conditions are publicly available at the time of
their submission. Product terms and conditions made publicly available
at the time of submission enable the Commission to obtain the views of
market participants and others to ascertain whether the proposed
product would be readily susceptible to manipulation or would otherwise
violate the Act. To this end, Commission staff routinely conduct trade
interviews when reviewing novel instruments to ascertain the relative
susceptibility of a product to manipulation. To be meaningful, these
interviews require the release of the proposed instrument's terms and
\19\ In cases of new products for which Commission approval has
been requested, the Commission generally intends to continue its
long-standing practice of requesting public comment on the terms and
conditions by publication of notices in the Federal Register. Where
notice in the Federal Register is impracticable or otherwise
unnecessary, notice of a submission for voluntary approval and of
the public availability of the proposed product's terms and
conditions will be through the Commission's internet Web site
(http://www.cftc.gov). The terms and conditions of products eligible
for trading by self-certification will be available from the
Commission at the time that the exchange legally could commence
trading: The beginning of the business day following certification
to the Commission.
The Commission wishes to ensure that registered entities are fully
aware that staff will summarily deny requests for confidential
treatment of information that is publicly-available pursuant to statute
or regulation. Accordingly, the Commission proposes also to amend part
40 by adding new paragraph (d) to regulation 40.8 to provide that staff
will not consider requests for confidential treatment of information
that is subject to section 5(d)(7) or regulations 40.3(a)(7) and
C. Comments Received
In response to its original proposal, the Commission received
comment letters from CME Group, CBOE Futures Exchange (CFE), and the
New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). These comments raised several
related concerns.
1. Market Maker Programs and Mechanisms for Executing Transactions
CFE generally supported proposed regulation 40.8(c) but urged that
it be further amended to specify that the terms and conditions of
market maker programs and other compensation and incentive plans will
be denied confidential treatment because they are rules as defined in
Commission regulation 40.1. The CME, on the other hand, asserted that
DCMs have a legitimate commercial and competitive interest in
maintaining the confidentiality of specific information about the
contractual obligations of, and incentives offered to, their market
Market maker and incentive programs are considered ``rules'' under
Commission regulations and are presumptively public. Accordingly, it is
agency practice to post compensation and incentive information promptly
on the Commission's Web site. The Commission believes that market
participants should have the opportunity to evaluate the compensation
structures of incentive programs since these arrangements may affect
the quality of price quotations provided by market makers as well as
liquidity in the market. Because material of this kind routinely is
made public, disclosure will not create a competitive disadvantage for
any exchange.\20\ Incentive programs may, however, include information
for which confidential treatment is appropriate. Commission staff has,
for example, withheld information relating to participant names, bid-
ask spreads and minimum size requirements of bid/ask spreads because
access to this information could give an unfair advantage to potential
counterparties of market makers as well as providing other markets with
a competitive edge when setting up their own market maker programs and
negotiating agreements with potential market makers. In these
circumstances, the Commission believes that while incentive programs
may presumptively be public, those programs may from time to time
include commercially valuable information which may be entitled to
protection. Accordingly, summary denial of confidential treatment to
all information in incentive programs would be inappropriate.
\20\ As CFE observed, the Commission's Office of General Counsel
so reasoned in rejecting an exchange's claim that its market maker
information was proprietary and protected under FOIA exemption
(b)(4), which protects under certain circumstances commercial or
financial information where its release could cause competitive harm
to the submitter. Letter dated October 27, 2005 from Office of
General Counsel regarding Freedom of Information Act Nos. 05-0138
and 05-0139.
NYMEX made a similar argument in connection with the Commission's
determination not to process confidential treatment requests covering,
inter alia, the mechanisms for executing transactions on or through the
facilities of the contract market. NYMEX claims that a trading tool
could potentially qualify as proprietary intellectual property for
which a registered entity may seek protection under patent or trademark
laws. The Commission notes that mechanisms for executing transactions
on or through the facilities of a contract market are required by
statute to be made publicly available.\21\ The Commission also
recognizes the importance to a registered entity of protecting what it
believes to be commercially sensitive
[[Page 44942]]
information, and invites public comment with respect to specific types
of trading tools that should be given consideration under a request for
confidential treatment.
\21\ See Section 7(d)(8) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 7(d)(8) (DCM Core
Principle 8).
2. Limited Applicability of Proposed Regulation to Registered Entities
In its comment letter, NYMEX questioned why the proposed regulation
singles out registered exchanges and clearing organizations for the new
requirements, while other submitters of information would continue to
follow the FOIA procedures in regulation 145.9 when requesting
confidential treatment of submissions to the Commission. On the
contrary, the proposed rule does not target a specific group of
submitters but rather is directed toward specific categories of
submissions--those filed pursuant to parts 40 and 41--for which
confidential treatment is frequently claimed despite requirements in
the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations that those
submissions be made available to the public. The harm to be remedied is
the frequently unwarranted delay in making public information filed
pursuant to these regulations. When registered entities have occasion
to submit other types of information to the Commission, they would
continue to follow the procedures provided in Commission regulation
145.9 for requesting confidential treatment under the FOIA of those
3. Relationship of the Proposed Procedures to the FOIA Process
Other concerns raised by the commenters may spring from a
misunderstanding of the relationship between the proposed regulation
and the FOIA. NYMEX, for example, appears to believe that all
confidentiality issues arise in the context of the FOIA and must be
made ``ripe'' by a FOIA request.\22\ On the contrary, confidentiality
issues frequently arise outside the scope of the FOIA and are resolved
without reference to that statute.\23\ As noted above, the Commission's
responsibility to provide transparency with respect to certain
information exists separately from its duty to implement the FOIA. The
latter obligation is addressed by the Commission's part 145
regulations, which deal with disclosure issues in the context of public
requests for information under the FOIA and are not necessarily
relevant or useful outside that context. In contrast, while registered
entities' interest in having their part 40 and 41 submissions protected
from disclosure may implicate the FOIA, it is separately in tension
with their statutory responsibility to make certain information
publicly available and with the Commission's commitment to providing
transparency where appropriate. It is this tension, not the filing of a
FOIA request, that signifies ``ripeness.'' As discussed above, the
Commission's obligations are in some instances statutory. In other
circumstances, the Commission has concluded as a matter of policy that
public access information about products and trading mechanisms
generally outweighs the asserted right of a registered entity to keep
its information confidential. Without the measures provided by the
proposed rulemaking, the Commission's ability fully to consider the
impact of a rule on the public would continue to be dependent on the
filing of a FOIA request to trigger the resolution of confidentiality
and disclosure issues.
\22\ The CME similarly cites a perceived burden on Commission
staff, which may be ``inundated'' with detailed written
justifications for every confidential treatment request where no
FOIA request is pending.
\23\ The Commission notes that the SEC specifies one procedure
for requesting confidential treatment under the FOIA (17 CFR 200.83)
and a separate procedure where the FOIA is not implicated. (17 CFR
240.24b-2) The latter applies to such filings as registration
statements, reports, applications, statements or other documents
filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Like the rule
proposed by the Commission, the SEC regulation requires that a
written justification be submitted simultaneously with the filing.
An initial decision to grant or disallow a request for nondisclosure
of information is not triggered by a FOIA request, and a submitter
objecting to an initial decision to deny confidential treatment may
petition the SEC for review of that decision.
CME's observation that such a request ``is likely never to be
received'' \24\ highlights the necessity for the proposed regulation.
The Commission frequently has been hobbled in its efforts to make
information public by confidential treatment requests which, while
perhaps not calculated to do so, can create a lengthy delay in the
disclosure of information the Commission believes should be publicly
available. The amendments we have proposed will permit the Commission
to quickly resolve confidentiality issues in connection with material
submitted pursuant to parts 40 and 41.
\24\ Letter dated August 20, 2007 from CME Group, at 2 and 3.
In that regard, the CME questioned the fairness of the proposed
regulation, asserting that it would prejudice FOIA requesters who would
not have an opportunity to respond to an appeal under the procedures
specified in the proposal. Similarly, the exchange expressed concern
that because the Commission may reconsider a grant of confidential
treatment if a FOIA request is subsequently made for the material, the
registered entity would be required to submit a ``new updated detailed
written justification based on possible changed circumstances at the
time of the appeal.'' \25\
\25\ Id. at 3.
The Commission believes these concerns are unwarranted. If an
appeal were filed by a registered entity under the procedures specified
in proposed regulation 40.8(c), no FOIA requester's rights would be
compromised, because the appeal would be based on staff's initial
determination to disclose the subject information prior to the filing
of a FOIA request. Should a FOIA requester subsequently seek
information given confidential treatment under regulation 40.8(c), the
process would be governed by FOIA regulation 145.9, and both the FOIA
requester and the submitter would have the appeal rights provided by
regulation 145.9. In these circumstances, the Commission believes that
fairness requires that the registered entity be given an opportunity to
update its detailed written justification based on ``possible changed
circumstances at the time of the appeal'' and to respond to specific
arguments raised by the requester. An updated detailed written
justification is not required, however, and the registered entity may
opt instead to rely on its original justification. In such cases, the
Commission's decision would consider the registered entity's detailed
written justification submitted under regulation 40.8(c) and the FOIA
requester's response to it, if any. Because the comments reflect some
confusion in this regard, the Commission proposes to further amend
proposed regulation 40.8(c) to clarify that appeal rights and
subsequent FOIA requests in which confidential treatment is an issue
will continue to be governed by regulation 145.9.
Finally, the Commission is not persuaded by CME's argument that the
proposed regulation would impose numerous costs on the Commission,
registered entities and FOIA requesters. All of the purported costs and
burdens cited by the exchange appear to be premised on its
misunderstanding that issues of disclosure exist only in the context of
the FOIA and that their resolution prior to receipt of a FOIA request
would be premature as well as duplicative. As discussed above, it is
the Commission's view that its ability to make information publicly
available cannot depend upon circumstances outside its control--such as
receipt of a FOIA request. Further, the registered
[[Page 44943]]
entity may choose not to assume the burden and cost, if any, of
updating its original detailed written justification in the event a
subsequent FOIA request is received. The Commission nonetheless
believes that fundamental fairness dictates that the registered entity
be given the opportunity to do so. Finally, the exchange has not
explained its claim that the proposed procedures would disadvantage
FOIA requesters, either financially or otherwise.
D. Proposed Amendment to Appendix D--Submission Cover Sheet and
In 2004, the Commission amended the part 40 and 41 regulations to
specify the portions of DTEF, DCO and DCM applications that are
publicly available. At that time, the Commission also added Appendix D
to the part 40 regulations prescribing a Submission Cover Sheet to
accompany all self-certified rules, self-certified products, rules
submitted for Commission approval, notifications of rule amendments,
and non-material agricultural rule changes.\26\ To this end, Appendix D
included a copy of the Submission Cover Sheet along with step-by-step
instructions for completing and returning the form to the Commission.
The cover sheet assists Commission staff in preparing and maintaining
the accuracy of the submissions being published on the Commission's Web
site. In order to alert staff that a submission contains material that
should not be published, the Commission proposes to amend the
Submission Cover Sheet to include a prominently placed box to be
checked when confidential treatment is being requested for any part of
a submission filed pursuant to part 40 or 41. The Commission also
proposes to amend Appendix D to part 40 to add an instruction to ensure
that registered entities are fully aware that checking the
``confidential treatment requested'' box on the Submission Cover Sheet
in no way obviates the submitter's responsibility to comply with the
confidential treatment requirements established in proposed regulation
40.8(c) and will not substitute either for notice or for full
compliance with those requirements.
\26\ 69 FR 67503 (Nov. 18, 2004).
E. Freedom of Information Act Amendments
Commission regulation 145.9(b) defines the scope of the
Commission's confidential treatment regulations: Its provisions apply
only where the Commission has not specified that an alternative
procedure be utilized in connection with a particular study, report,
investigation, or other matter. The Commission proposes to amend
regulation 145.9(b) to reference the alternative procedure provided in
regulation 40.8(c) for submissions filed under parts 40 and 41.
III. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Section 15(a) of the Act, as amended by section 119 of the CFMA,
requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its
action before issuing a new regulation under the Act. By its terms,
section 15(a) as amended does not require the Commission to quantify
the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the
benefits of a regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, section 15(a)
simply requires the Commission to ``consider the costs and benefits''
of its action.
Section 15(a) of the Act further specifies that costs and benefits
shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public
concern: Protection of market participants and the public; efficiency,
competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price
discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest
considerations. Accordingly, the Commission could, in its discretion,
give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could,
in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a
particular regulation was necessary or appropriate to protect the
public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish
any of the purposes of the Act.
The Commission is considering the costs and benefits of these
proposed regulations in light of the specified provisions of section
15(a) of the Act:
1. Protection of market participants and the public. The proposed
amendments should have no effect on the Commission's ability to protect
market participants and the public.
2. Efficiency and competition. The proposed amendments are expected
to benefit efficiency by making the non-confidential information from
registered entity submissions available to the public in a more timely
manner. The Commission anticipates that the costs of compliance with
the confidential treatment procedures will be minimal. The proposed
amendments should have no effect, from the standpoint of imposing costs
or creating benefits, on competition in the futures and options
3. Financial integrity of futures markets and price discovery. The
amendments should have no effect, from the standpoint of imposing costs
or creating benefits, on the financial integrity or price discovery
function of the futures and options markets.
4. Sound risk management practices. The amendments being proposed
herein should have no effect on the risk management practices of the
futures and options industry.
5. Other public considerations. No additional public considerations
could be determined.
After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to
propose the rules and rule amendments set forth below. The Commission
invites public comment on its application of the cost-benefit
provision. Commenters also are invited to submit with their comment
letters any data that they may have quantifying the costs and benefits
of the proposal.
IV. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (2000),
requires federal agencies, in proposing regulations, to consider the
impact of those regulations on small entities. The regulations proposed
herein would affect derivatives transaction execution facilities,
designated contract markets, and derivatives clearing organizations.
The Commission previously has determined that the foregoing entities
are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.\27\ Accordingly, the
Acting Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed regulations will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
\27\ 47 FR 18618, 18619 (April 30, 1982), discussing contract
markets; 66 FR 42256, 42268 (August 10, 2001), discussing exempt
boards of trade, exempt commercial markets and derivatives
transaction execution facilities; 66 FR 45605, 45609 (August 29,
2001), discussing derivatives clearing organizations.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rulemaking contains information collection
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995,
44 U.S.C. 3504(h), the Commission has submitted a copy of this section
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: Rules Relating to part 40, Provisions
Common to DCMs, DTEFs and DCOs, OMB Control Number 3038-0022.
The expected effect of the proposed amended regulations will be to
increase the burden previously approved by OMB for this collection of
information by 16 hours as it will result in the filing
[[Page 44944]]
of approximately five additional pages when a registered entity files a
detailed written justification and confidential appendix under
Commission Regulations 40.2, 40.4, 40.5, and 40.6.
The estimated burden was calculated as follows:
Estimated number of respondents: 12.
Annual responses by each respondent: .30.
Total annual responses: 4.
Estimated average hours per response: 4.
Annual reporting burden: 16.
Collection of Information: Rules Relating to part 41, Security
Futures Products, OMB Control Number 3038-0059.
The expected effect of the proposed amended regulations will be to
increase the burden previously approved by OMB for this collection of
information by 3.6 hours as it will result in the filing of
approximately five additional pages when a registered entity files a
detailed written justification and confidential appendix under
Commission regulations 41.23 and 41.24.
Estimated number of respondents: 3.
Annual responses by each respondent: .30.
Total annual responses: .90.
Estimated average hours per response: 4.
Annual reporting burden: 3.6.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission.
In Compliance with the PRA, the Commission, through these proposed
regulations, solicits comments to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have a practical use; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3)
enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) minimize the burden of collecting information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. This
does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to the
Commission on the proposed regulations. Copies of the information
collection submission to OMB are available from the CFTC Clearance
Officer, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5160.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 40
Commodity futures, Contract markets, Designation application,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
17 CFR Part 41
Security Futures.
17 CFR Part 145
Commission records and information.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend 17 CFR parts 40, 41, and 145 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6c, 7, 7a, 8 and 12a, as
amended by appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-365.
2. Section 40.2 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3)(v) to read as
Sec. 40.2 Listing Products for trading by certification.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) A request for confidential treatment as permitted under the
procedures of Sec. 40.8.
* * * * *
3. Section 40.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as
Sec. 40.3 Voluntary submission of new products for Commission review
and approval.
(a) * * *
(7) Include a request for confidential treatment as permitted under
the procedures of Sec. 40.8.
* * * * *
4. Section 40.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) to read as
Sec. 40.5 Voluntary submission of rules for Commission review and
(a) * * *
(8) Include a request for confidential treatment as permitted under
the procedures of Sec. 40.8.
* * * * *
5. Section 40.6 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(3)(vi) to
read as follows:
Sec. 40.6 Self-certification of rules by designated contract markets
and registered derivatives clearing organizations.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) A request for confidential treatment as permitted under the
procedures of Sec. 40.8.
* * * * *
6. Section 40.8 is amended by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 40.8 Availability of public information.
* * * * *
(c) A registered entity's filing of new products under the self-
certification procedures, new products for Commission review and
approval, new rules and rule amendments for Commission review and
approval, and new rules and rule amendments submitted under the self-
certification procedures will be treated as public information unless
covered by a request for confidential treatment. If a registered entity
files a request for confidential treatment, the following procedures
will apply:
(1) A detailed written justification of the confidential treatment
request must be filed simultaneously with the request for confidential
treatment. The form and content of the detailed written justification
shall be governed by Sec. 145.9(e) of this chapter;
(2) All material for which confidential treatment is requested must
be segregated in an appendix to the submission;
(3) The submission itself must indicate that material has been
segregated and, as appropriate, redacted;
(4) Commission staff may make an initial determination with respect
to the request for confidential treatment without regard to whether a
request for the information has been sought under the Freedom of
Information Act;
(5) A submitter of information under this Part may appeal an
adverse decision by staff to the Commission's Office of General
Counsel. The form and content of such appeal shall be governed by Sec.
145.9(g) of this chapter.
(6) The grant of any part of a request for confidential treatment
under this section may be reconsidered if a subsequent request under
the Freedom of Information Act is made for the information.
[[Page 44945]]
(d) Commission staff will not consider requests for confidential
treatment of information that is required to be made public under
Section 5(d)(7) of the Act or Commission Regulations 40.3(a)(7) or
6. Appendix D is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of
section 8, ``Other requirements,'' to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 40--Submission Cover Sheet and Instructions
* * * * *
(8) Other requirements--* * * Checking the box marked
``confidential treatment requested'' on the Submission Cover Sheet
does not obviate the submitter's responsibility to comply with all
applicable requirements for requesting confidential treatment in
Rule 40.8(c) and, where appropriate, Rule 145.9, and will not
substitute for notice or full compliance with such requirements.
* * * * *
7. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 206, 251 and 252, Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat.
2763, 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6f, 6j, 7a-2, 12a; 15 U.S.C. 78g(c)(2).
8. Section 41.23 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(7) to read
as follows:
Sec. 41.23 Listing of security futures products for trading.
(a) * * *
(7) Includes a request for confidential treatment as permitted
under the procedures of Sec. 40.8.
* * * * *
9. Section 41.24 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(6) to read
as follows:
Sec. 41.24 Rule amendments to security futures products.
(a) * * *
(6) Includes a request for confidential treatment as permitted
under the procedures of Sec. 40.8.
* * * * *
10. The authority for part 145 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207; Pub. L. 89-554, 80
Stat. 383; Pub. L. 90-23, 81 Stat. 54; Pub. L. 98-502, 88 Stat.
1561-1564 (5 U.S.C. 552); Sec. 101(a), Pub. L. 93-463, 88 Stat. 1389
(5 U.S.C. 4a(j)); unless otherwise noted.
11. Section 145.9 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
Sec. 145.9 Petition for confidential treatment of information
submitted to the Commission.
* * * * *
(b) Scope. The provisions of this section shall apply only where
the Commission has not specified that an alternative procedure be
utilized in connection with a particular study, report, investigation,
or other matter. See Sec. 40.8 for procedures to be utilized in
connection with filing information required to be filed pursuant to 17
CFR parts 40 and 41.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on July 23, 2008, by the Commission.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-17529 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
Last Updated: August 1, 2008


text:
The world depends on mariners. Mariners depend on SCI. And we depend on you.
SCI hosted its Christmas at Sea Gala and Auction on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at the Union League Club in New York City.
Photos by Leo Sorel.
Special Events are an important source of funding for the Seamen's Church Institute's programs. If you would like to receive information or invitations to our events, please email SCI's Special Events Team or telephone 212-349-9090.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
With the hot weather here in Vancouver, I thought I would throw it back to my first winter last year! You know…just to cool things down a bit! 😉 We had an unusually long winter, and it typically doesn't snow as much as it did! We still had snow in April! It was crazy!
My humom remembers the first time I actually saw snow outside and took a video. If you listen closely, I actually growled at it! BOL! I apologize for the shaky camera, my humom needs to work on her video filming skills!
View this post on Instagram
What is this white stuff everywhere? The heck is "snow"?? Let me try eating some of it and maybe I'll like it. (If you turn up the volume you can hear me growl at the snow at the very beginning of the video 😂) #miathepittie #pitbull #puppy #puppiesofinstagram #myfirstsnowfall #dontbullymybreed #endbsl #pitbulllife #pits #vancouver #yvrdogs #dogsofinstgram #pitbullsofinstagram
Once I found out how tasty snow was, I realized it wasn't that bad! It was actually quite a lot of fun!!!
Of course, any snowy adventure wouldn't be an adventure without my bestie Wilhelmina!
Oops! I can't forget Duffy!
Naturally, our humoms always find opportunities to dress us up. We're always the best dressed of the forest!
Mia: Ummm…Wilhelmina? Weren't you wearing a jacket when we first started our trail walk? Where did it go??
Wilhelmina: Meh…I feel more free this way! You should try Mia!
Mia: Hmmm…I'm not as free spirited as you Wilhelmina! How about this?…
Wilhelmina didn't look impressed…
Mia: How about climbing this big rock?? Is this impressive?
Do you guys miss the snow?
Have a great day everyone! Thanks for visiting!


text:
The "sources say" are buzzing into Engadget's ear again, and given their track record, it's worth a read.
The next iteration has cameras, a new screen, a new SD slot and, probably most important, a new chip set.
Qualcomm is moving up in the world and into Apple's skinnier iPad. They're replacing Infineon chips, as announced later last year. The dual chipset is most likely designed so the new iPad can run on both AT&T and Verizon at launch.
Launch? At least Engadget has the rumor set at an April launch -- not the somewhat infuriating late-January launch that was previously rumored.
Burning early adopters in nine months is probably not the best move. Besides, Apple lurves its 12-month cycle, as seen in iPhone iterations.


text:
4 green onions
½ head napa cabbage, sliced thinly
½ cup cilantro leaves
2 limes
½ cup pareve Tofutti sour cream
1½ tablespoon sugar
1 teaspoon kosher salt
½ teaspoon pepper
Slice green onions long and on the bias so you have pieces similar in shape to the cabbage. Toss together onions, cabbages, and cilantro in a large bowl.
Zest both limes and juice 1 lime. In a bowl, mix lime zest and juice, tofutti sour cream, sugar, salt and pepper. Pour dressing over cabbage mixture; stir to combine.


text:
Maurie Sutton: 2005 Saturn Vue
"It's my first new car," says Maurie Sutton, 36, a PhD candidate at UVA's Curry School. "I love the color– slate gray– and I got a free sunroof, so yay for Saturn."
Night driving is a pleasure in its own right, she says. "The dash is very cool. It's chrome and white– as cool as the Volkswagen dash."
Sutton bought her ride last New Year's Eve, and, appropriately, her resolution was to keep her new baby clean. How's that going?
"I've been doing well considering small child and small child's friends," she jokes, pointing to a Sprite stain on the rear seat, courtesy of 8-year-old daughter Lauren (or a pal).
There's one thing this single mom won't be doing: speeding. "It has no pickup, so you never get a speeding ticket," she laughs. "Which is okay for us because there's no reason to speed."


text:
Eldora Speedway 33rd Annual World 100 - The Greatest Shows On Dirt
One race can truly make or break a season if it is scheduled after Labor Day. The prestigious events in terms of stature and payday will generally come in September and beyond. Drivers who have had mediocre seasons can rebound nicely with just one good showing. It can breathe new life into a staggering program. It can also create massive disappointment because it's 365 days until you get another chance like this.
In September, three big racing events occur on dirt tracks that get plenty of national attention. These three races are different in some ways but similar in others. The tracks are located in different states with their own unique characteristics. A couple of the events involve just one division of car in competition. Points are not the most important consideration for this race. The cash is nice, but the prestige is even better.
Regretfully, two of the events are held at the same time, forcing the American racing fan to make a choice. Judging from the crowds, though, the choice wasn't to stay home. In fact, these events went up against the venerable "NASCAR Saturday night" and no one cared.Dateline: Rossburg, OH
Eldora Speedway33rd Annual World 100UMP Late Models
History has shown that a driver with a hot hand coming into the Eldora race has to be considered a favorite. Wisconsin racer Dan Schlieper, winner of a $50,000 payday at the North-South 100 at Florence (Kentucky) Speedway two weeks before, was among the favorites. Darrell Lanigan, winner of Eldora's prestigious Dream in June, had broken through, and all eyes were on him. Former winners were abundant, but so were the hopefuls. A near-record 222 cars were entered-one of the highest totals since the rules allowed one car per driver, cramming the Eldora pits and overflow area.
The unique format of the World 100 makes it tough for drivers with little track time. A three-lap practice session is all the time you can get at speed-not much if you're looking for a winning combination. Drivers drew for their qualifying order. They drew one pill for round one and another for round two. The worst luck is a late pill in round one and an early pill for round two. It means no time for changes between sessions. It happens. It did this year.
Even worse is having bad luck on track during qualifying. A number of cars impacted the wall in their search for first-round speed. They essentially threw away 50 percent of their hopes in an instant.
For 102 drivers, there would be no tomorrow. Only the fastest 120 get to attempt the six qualifying heats. Most of the rest get to run nonqualifying races on Friday night into the wee hours of the morning. You can take heart that you get track time, but there's little joy in knowing that even a win won't guarantee a shot. You may make it as an alternate, but your odds are small.
How important is qualifying? Elvin Herschberger was 121st fastest. His time was .001 second slower than John Provenzano. It meant Provenzano raced on Saturday. Herschberger ended up winning a nonqualifier's race. At least he can say he won a feature at Eldora.
5 Reasons to beat the World 100(instead of staying home to watch a NASCAR race on TV)1 - Caution laps don't count. You get racing every lap.2 - Drivers can be approached. They'll even take the time to chat with you.3 - There is respect for tradition with this race.4 - Races are won with the preparation and on-track ability, not because the computer calculated the fuel mileage correctly.5 - Earl Baltes
Can You Hear Me Now?The UMP rules make it clear. Rule No. 15 says no radios are allowed in the race car or on anyone connected with the race car. The spotters have a different job to do here. Their only means of communication is visual, and teams will place crewmembers at different spots on the track to communicate to the driver. The message is usually the gap between the driver and a car in front or behind. The driver doesn't know who is behind or how far because rule No. 15 also doesn't allow mirrors.
Hard-Luck AwardMaking the top 120 drivers has been considered as difficult as making the 24-car starting field for the 100-lap main event. Though it is difficult to weather the Friday night storm, drivers often find themselves in a position to face more work on Saturday.
Case in point is local racer Jerry Bowersock. After his qualifying run put him into the sixth heat, Bowersock discovered the engine wasn't keeping oil pressure. The only recourse was a Saturday engine change. At first, the new engine wouldn't fit correctly. Then, after some grinding allowed the powerplant to settle into its cradle, the process of hooking it up began. A test fire indicated it was good to go by late afternoon.
When the sixth heat race was called to the grid, Bowersock's car did not answer the call, and an alternate received a free pass. The new engine suffered fuel pressure problems, denying the Miracle Motorsports team the chance to realize the fruit of their labor.
Second ChanceMore than a dozen drivers had first-round qualifying tries snatched away by the Eldora concrete. Some of the fortunate few were able to rebound and put together a good second-round time, but they had to do it with slightly damaged cars.
Ted Loomis spent his Saturday putting the car back into respect- able form after the right side was heavily damaged. Loomis made the field qualifying 66th with just one lap.
It wasn't the way he had hoped to spend his Saturday afternoon, but it exemplified the effort of the American short-track racer. Loomis did much of the repair work himself, with an occasional helping hand. On the hot Saturday afternoon, he redrilled, reformed, and replaced sheetmetal on his No. 23. His effort allowed him the chance to run the heat race, but his starting position deep in the field denied him a chance to contest for starting spot. A second lap may have yielded a better starting position, but the never-say-die attitude kept this racer in the field for a chance at glory. It also gave him valuable track time for a future assault at Eldora.
The WinnerIt wasn't long ago that Dan Schlieper's future in a race car of any kind was in jeopardy. A four-wheeler accident left him with head and neck injuries. With time and therapy, he returned to racing-and it has been a good ride.
Schlieper went to a Rayburn chassis in August 2003, going back to a brand he had experienced before. The change helped. The engines are provided by Pro Power, a company operated by Bill and John Schlieper. It's all in the family.
Schlieper's World 100 domination started with a solid qualifying run, which earned him a spot in the pivotal sixth heat. After fast qualifier Scott Bloomquist drew the inversion of three cars, Schlieper was shuffled to a starting spot inside row two for the heat.
At the drop of the green, he was gone, taking the lead from polesitter Tim Hitt before the field passed the flagstand for the first lap. Schlieper stayed in front and earned the pole starting position for the World 100. When that race went green, he sent a message to everyone. The car was strong and Schlieper worked to keep the field at bay. He led every lap in getting his first win. His previous best was Fifth in last year's event.
Dateline: Batesville, AR
Batesville Speedway8th Annual Schoenfeld HeadersMid-America ChampionshipsStreet Stocks
Racers deserve respect, and it should come regardless of the type of car they drive.
Street Stock racers across the country are beginning to get respect. Many weekly race tracks realize that Street Stocks are an important part of the racing environment. They may not pull in the headlines like Late Models or Modifieds, but they are quite capable of putting together wheel-to-wheel racing action that you won't soon forget.
Batesville Speedway has put together an annual race for the Street Stockers that continues to grow. With the help of Schoenfeld Headers, the purse and prestige draw racers from a 10-state area. For the '03 event, more than 120 teams came out for a shot at the $10,000 on top. At many tracks, the drivers would have to win 20 features to get that kind of money.
The Cars The rules required the cars to weigh 3,300 pounds after the race with the driver. The minimum wheelbase was 101 inches, and the car had to remain stock with the engines in stock position. Bars could be added to protect the radiator and gas tank, but no exterior bars were permitted. The cars used two-barrel carburetors, and headers were allowed. No aftermarket transmissions were permitted. The rules also called for a $500 motor exchange with any car on the lead lap eligible to make a claim.
For suspension, racing shocks were OK, but all shocks had to be mounted in the stock location. Double shocks, weight jacks, and torque-absorbing devices were not allowed.
The cars ran on gasoline. Racing seatbelts were required, and no mirrors were permitted.
Six heat races were held on Friday night to pare down the field. The top three drivers from each heat transferred directly to the A, with three B feature races sending two more racers on to the big show. An average of 32 cars started each B feature-a healthy field for just two positions. Track provisionals were awarded to a pair of cars to fill out the 26-car starting grid.
Heat-one winner Tommy Porter started on the pole for the 50-lap feature but could hold the lead only briefly. Fourth-starting Kevin Salter, a Modified regular at Batesville, grabbed the lead on lap 2. Peyton Taylor took the top spot from Salter in a move that would set the tone for the rest of the race. A red flag on lap 11 put the field into a "MARS Late Model style" double-file restart, with Salter gaining the advantage a few laps later.
With the final caution coming late in the race, the stage was set for a classic matchup between Salter and Taylor. At the line, Salter edged Taylor for the win and the $10,000 prize. Taylor's $5,000 was a fair reward for a fine effort. Each finisher received a healthy payout with last place taking home $800. (Information provided by Shawna Snyder)
Dateline: Boone, IABoone Speedway21st Annual IMCA Speedway Motors Super NationalsModifieds, Stock Cars, Hobby Stocks, Late Models, and Sprints
It's the closest thing to nonstop action you're going to find in short-track racing. The IMCA Super Nationals started on a Monday and ended on a Saturday night. Along the way, there were around 200 races. On Wednesday and Friday alone, there were 40 Modified heat races, eight B mains, and a pair of A mains. If you go to Boone, you get your money's worth.
You would think the 31/48-mile, high-banked dirt oval would be worn to nothing. It would be if there wasn't meticulous preparation and an unwavering plan to keep the surface in best possible condition. You never hear drivers complain that the track wasn't good for their race, no matter when that race took the green.
Late Model fans got their thrills early with the running of the Deery Brothers Summer Series event on Labor Day Monday. These teams could get their one-day show, then make preparations for the few remaining races in the '03 season. There were points on the line as this activity represented a traveling series, while the remaining divisions were in point battles that revolved around their weekly track action.
The winner's circle was occupied by a Late Model rookie as Darin Duffy scored his first series win. Duffy had run well at the track in a Modified and parlayed his experience to outlast Darrell DeFrance. Both drivers had won their heat races to earn prime starting spots.
The Tuesday program brought open-wheel fans out in force as the Sprints occupied center stage. Russ Fletcher handled the field of 17 starters to earn his place as the first former champion to successfully defend his Sprint crown. Fletcher joins Brett Stegenga as the only drivers to win the title twice. Minnesota racer Stegenga pulled off the feat in 1992 and again in 1997.
The second day of racing also kept the ball rolling for the Stock Cars and Hobby Stocks, who had started the qualifying process on Monday. There were 10 more starting spots determined for the Stock Cars, while the remaining half of the 24-car starting field for the Hobby Stocks became known. These drivers could rest on their laurels until the main event on Saturday night.
Wednesday brought Modifieds to the track for the first time, and the pits were starting to bulge. This was the first opportunity to make the main for the Modified drivers, and the competition was intense. A total of 40 heat races were followed by eight B mains and a pair of qualifying A mains. Most of the field ended up having to do it over again on Thursday-and maybe even Friday-before the ordeal was over. Stock Cars finished up their qualifying for the Saturday show, and it was the last chance for anyone wishing to move on.
Thursday was all about the Modifieds. More starting spots were determined for the Saturday running of the Dirt Works Ron Efkamp Race of Champions. This elite competition is open to only champions or runners-up from IMCA member tracks. Only 12 cars get to go green on Saturday. Six of the qualifiers came from Thursday, while the remainder came from Friday night.
Friday represented the last chance for anyone wishing to make a Saturday race. Off-track activity included a golf tournament and a queen contest. On-track action saw the field set for the Modified 40-lapper and the Race of Champions.
Saturday brought the biggest crowd, as the grandstands were filling with paying customers who shelled out only $15 for the privilege. The 24-car field of Hobby Stocks, which had been set for some time, consisted of 22 drivers from Iowa and a pair of Kansas interlopers. Andy Boeckman of Wall Lake won it for Iowa, taking the lead on the third lap of the 20-lap main and running the rest of the distance with the point. It was Boeckman's first Hobby Stock main win. The class has been part of the IMCA Super Nationals since 1998.
The Stock Car crown was won by a first-timer as Randy Brands grabbed the lead near the halfway mark. Brands, who came into a Wednesday main through a last-chance race, became the 11th different champion in the division.
David Murray (Modifieds) and Ryan Rose (Stock Cars) were winners of the Race of Champion events in their respective divisions.
The stage was set for the final race of the week, with Modifieds hitting the track in three-wide fashion. Exciting racing throughout the contest found Al Hejna leading the field until the final turn of the final lap. A broken axle stopped Hejna's hopes and opened the door for a familiar face to take center stage.
For the second time, John Logue picked up a win by virtue of a last lap pass. It gave Logue his fifth Super Nationals title, tying Steve Jackson (Stock Cars) for the honor. Logue's last lap pass previously occurred in 1995 en route to his first title.
Boone By The NumbersEntries in the '03 Super Nationals by clas
|Stock Cars:
|Hobby Stocks:
|Late Models:
|Sprint Cars:
|Total car count:
The Stock Cars and Hobby Stocks set new all-time records for car count. The Stock Cars total was 5 higher than the previous record of 154, set at the 2002 IMCA Super Nationals. The Hobby Stock record of 123 cars fell in a big way with 22 more racers on hand this year. The record for this division was also set in 2002.
IMCA Super Nationals Modified Results1.John Logue2.Tony Hofbauer3.Al Hejna4.Terry Belcher5.Kelly Shyrock6.Scott Olson7.Rik Gropp8.Brad Rohloff9.Troy Cordes10.Joe McBirnie11.Jeff Schroyer12.Greg Cox13Mike Hejna14Yancy Shepard15.Denny Stoneburner16.Adam Larson17.Mike Molle18.Kellen Chadwick19.Ricky Stephan20.Brian Calhoon21.Jared Siefert22.Kendall Sather23Bill Davis Jr.24.Ryan Ruter25.Randy Havlik26.William Gould27Brian Mullen28.Johnny Saathoff29.Rich Lewerke30.Kevin Stoa31.Jeff Feaster32.Rex Merritt33.Wade Cross


text:
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Idioms, Wikipedia.
Stevens,family of U.S. inventors. John Stevens, 1749–1838, b. New York City, was graduated from King's College (now Columbia Univ.) in 1768. He studied law (1768–71) and soon joined his father, a wealthy landowner and merchant, in New Jersey politics. During the American Revolution he served as treasurer of New Jersey and later (1782–83) was surveyor general of the state. In 1784 he bought an extensive tract of land in what is now Hoboken, N.J., and, when his father died in 1792, he inherited a large estate.
By the late 1780s, however, Stevens had turned his attention to steamboat transportation, and having played a major role in the establishment of the first U.S. patent laws, he procured patents for various steam boilers and auxiliary devices. With the aid of Nicholas J. Roosevelt, Stevens built (1806–8) the Phoenix, a seagoing steamboat, which, however, after 1809 shuttled between Philadelphia and Trenton. Stevens operated (1811) the first steam ferry between New York City and Hoboken, but because of the monopoly of Robert Fulton, he soon desisted. After 1810 he devoted himself to railroad activities. In 1815 he received from New Jersey the first railroad charter in the United States, and a decade later he built a pioneer locomotive.
Stevens's shipbuilding and railroad interests were carried forward by his sons. The elder son, Robert Livingston Stevens, 1787–1856, b. Hoboken, N.J., was a mechanical engineer and inventor. He made numerous improvements in the design and construction of steamboats and designed a spring piling generally used in ferry-slip construction. He was chief engineer of the Camden and Amboy RR and imported from England the famous locomotive John Bull, now exhibited in the Smithsonian Institution. He also invented the T rail, the rail spike, and a new system of laying rails, all of which came into wide use in railroad track construction.
Edwin Augustus Stevens, 1795–1868, b. Hoboken, N.J., was closely associated with his father and his brother Robert in all these enterprises. He was also noted for initiating the construction of a railroad from New York City to Philadelphia, as the inventor of the Stevens plow, and as a pioneer builder of ironclad warships. He founded the Stevens Institute of Technology.
See biography of John Stevens by A. D. Turnbull (1928, repr. 1973).


text:
It was recently highlighted by Fox News that two-fifths of the workforce at the Hoover Dam will be retiring in the next 5 years.
The government will need to replace about 40 workers, mostly in specialist roles, including Hydroengineers and Electricians. The skill set required for these positions is considered to be uncommon and not taught in most schools throughout the US, according to the spokeswomen from the Department of Reclamation, Rose Davis.
Davis goes on to say that, "It's hands-on training. We teach mechanics and hydroelectricians how the dam works... We teach them how to fix generators from the 1930's." Currently, the Department of Reclamation is competing with 111 other employers who are also hiring for positions requiring hydroelectric expertise.
The Dept. of Reclamation is 6th among the companies with the most job ads, according to WANTED Analytics.
The other employers include:
Recruiting conditions are likely to be moderately difficult for hydroelectric positions, scoring a 40 on our Hiring Scale. Our Hiring Scale ranges from 1 to 99, with 99 meaning hardest-to-recruit. However, while it seems that a sufficient number of candidates exist, they may not have the specialized skills the Dept. of Reclamation is looking for, like working with 83-year old systems. This is why they have begun partnerships with colleges. It's important that colleges train their students on older infrastructure that they will likely be working on, in addition to the new developments in the area. Within the Las Vegas Nevada metro area, the region where the Hoover Dam is located, University of Nevada - Las Vegas is the only nearby university that has electrical and electronics engineering education programs. The Dept. of Reclamation can also expand their college recruitment efforts to include more schools nationally that also have electrical and electronics engineering education programs. If they haven't already, they can look to these colleges and universities to set up the proper curriculum or training programs. Below are the colleges and universities located throughout the US that have the programs required for Hydroelectric Engineers and Electricians.
Colleges or Universities with the Most Electrical and Electronics Engineering Graduates
Despite there being about 14,300 electrical engineering graduating candidates likely to enter the workforce in 2014, Davis says millenials are hard to keep. These employees often leave the company for a pay increase often provided at private sector companies. The average advertised pay for Hydroelectric Engineers throughout the US is $83,150. This number represents the pre-negotiated salary used to attract candidates. It is not necessarily the agreed upon pay between the employer and employee. Employers may want to consider paying employees within this range or offering other incentives to increase employee retention.
If you're recruiting for a niche engineering role, visit WANTED Analytics to learn how you can find this data for you region.
Views: 127
Or, the government could outsource these functions (while guaranteeing the workers are paid fairly).


text:
Pete Ford's Melbourne-based Resolution Independent has brought on board Wayne Duband, former president of Warner Bros International, as executive producer for Resolution's planned slate of big-budget genre films.
The next film to be produced by Resolution will be Russian director Nikolai Pigarev's Cold Patrol, written by Christopher Webster. Ford is producing the English-language action adventure film, to shoot in late 2013 in the Arctic Circle. The budget is likely to be under $8m.
The story follows a dogsled team in the Arctic that discovers an abandoned Soviet town that has been overtaken by zombie polar bears. Resolution is looking for partners on that project now.
Meanwhile, the company is at AFM representing world rights to Pigarev's Meteletsa: Winter of the Dead [pictured] the first Russian-language zombie film. That film has its world premiere at the Leeds International Film Festival on Saturday and Resolution is close to announcing a first deal.
Resolution aims to work on films of budgets up to $100m, taking advantage of Australia's 40% Producer Offset. They expect to partner with studios on some projects.
"These are studio-level films but we have our options open. Studios could finance with us, but we can also package a film financially with key territories sold and the producer offset and then get a studio partner on board later," Ford told Screen.
Future projects also include Popbot, adapted from the graphic novel by Ashley Wood, about a punk rocker saving humanity from a robot uprising; and Wynter Dark, a feature film being developed as well as a graphic novel to be published in June 2013.
After leaving Warner, LA-based Duband formed Wayne Duband Consulting with clients including DreamWorks, Paramount, Sony and Lucas Films. "I always wanted to reconnect with Australia," Duband says of coming on board with Resolution (he will continue to reside in LA). "When I met Pete, I saw that it wasn't about developing Australian films, it was about making films in Australia. There was an opening to do studio-type films in Australia."
Ford launched Resolution Independent in 2006, and the company's first feature production was Jamie Blanks' Storm Warning.


text:
|Hot Legs and Feet
Click here to visit site
|Short review: If you're a serious foot fetishist with internet access, it's a safe assumption that you've heard of of this internet-site. They've been one of the leading web-sites in the field for many years and with good reason -- they on a regular basis deliver high-quality, on-target content sure to please both the purist and the more occasional members of the tribe similar. It also doesn't hurt that the niches and topics covered here are extremely dissimilar, pushing the limits of what you'd commonly expect to see in this genre.


text:
On April 12, 2016, the P.I. Nixon Medical Historical Library hosted this year's History of Anatomy Class taught by Charleen Moore, PhD, Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of Cellular and Structural Biology.
Faculty, students, and staff from the UT Health Science Center San Antonio Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, School of Medicine, School of Dentistry, and Dolph Briscoe Jr. Library gathered to view 50 titles from the historical anatomy book collection, along with two stereoscopes, accompanying multi-dimensional slides, and a rare tintype of surgeon and pharmacist Dr. Crawford Long.
Highlights of the event included a chance to see up-close a 1st edition of De humani corporis fabrica libri septem (1543) by Andreas Vesalius and a collection of early nineteenth-century books on surgery by brothers, Charles and John Bell.
For more information on the collections of the P. I. Nixon Medical Historical Library, contact Lisa Matye Finnie, Special Collections Librarian, at email@example.com or 210-567-2406.
Tags: May 2016


text:
@DeltaFaucetCAN Our Touch2O and Touch2O.xt Technology faucets are a great addition to your Universal Design bathroom.
@DeltaFaucetCAN Our Touch2O and Touch2O.xt Technology faucets are a great addition to your Universal Design bathroom.
Experience the precise control of Delta® Touch2O Technology. Simply tap anywhere on the spout or handle of the faucet with your hand, wrist or forearm to start and stop the flow of water.
Hover over hotspots to learn more
"I hated my old kitchen faucet - leaky and not high enough to get big pots under it when cleaning. This high neck, touch design is absolutely a home chef's dream. I am very pleased with the look of the Venetian Bronze - very modern and elegant. Way to go Delta!"
By QTpye907 —
"Just installed it a couple of days ago and it is a truly exquisite faucet. The touch feature works flawlessly and its convenience is amazing. You also end up using a lot less water since one touch stops the water instantly."
By Uday —
"We were replacing a 11 year old faucet in our kitchen and found this one to be appealing at first glance for its high style. Our kitchen is all stainless and we have 11 year old solid surface counters. We are not ready to do a hard core make over at this time as the funds are a bit too tight for that bur we found that upgrading appliances and fixtures was an appropriate option for us. We have had this faucet for about a month and find it to be wonderful. The touch control, while at first a bit of a concern, is our favorite feature. Whether a full remodel or just an faucte upgrade as we did, this is a very nice option for the price. Delta was also one of the top recommended brands by our friend that is a professioal plumber ... all in all we are very pleased with this purchase."
By scottdawnb —
"Love my faucet! Needed a part, customer service was fantastic! Talked to me like we were old friends! My part arrived in 2 days, easy replacement! Wish I had similar in all my sinks!"
By KimberlghD —
"It's not only the style of the faucet and the ease of use with the touch activation and swivel feature, but, the eco features are a major plus. Living in the desert where water restrictions are a summer requirement you're already ahead of the game knowing that every time you use this faucet you're saving water. A feature not listed is Peace of mind, just knowing it's a Delta."
By jgwallace100 —
"What an easy product to install! Sure it's work but the instructions were clear and the online videos were great to follow. The faucet itself?!! Awesome! No leaks from the get go. Worked as expected. The quality of the product is great. No cheap plastic parts. I went in with "fear and trembling" to install this and finished amazed at the easy and quality of the product. My first choice next time for faucets will be Delta."
By louisjjames —
"This is an attractive item, quality production and great engineering......works like a charm."
By riyank —
"This product was installed by me over 10 times and every time a am amzed at how well it turns out. Most of the competitors touch faucets are a hit or miss and tend to not work everytime after tough use. This one never fails and is quality from the minute is is installed and for years to come."
By mikey —
"We love this Faucet. We only use the touch feature to turn it on. We will be purchasing one for our other home as well"
By Melanie —
"We needed to replace our sink and counter-top, so we removed a perfectly good Delta faucet that we liked in favor of the touch faucet. In addition to being able to just tap the faucet to turn it on and off, you can move the faucet from one side of the sink to the other without triggering it again by just lingering your hand on the faucet an extra second. Delta engineers have obviously given this a lot of thought. Another feature that sold us on the product is the magnetic sprayer head; it is so much better than any of the competition."
By ialwaysdoitmyself —
"Very easy to install ! I am not a very handy person but was able to follow the instructions step by step. The design is very nice and it works great. This is a great way to increase your selling value of your house. The 2 stream water options are nice. The touchless is very cool. Requires AA batteries and must have room under your sink to hold the chords, wires, and battery connectors. Also, water turns off by itself if left on too long. Great way to think Green !"
By Crispy30 —
"My family and I love our new touch kitchen faucet. It's so nice, not having to turn your faucet on and off when your hands are dirty. It's so convienient and the touch feature works everytime. I would recommend this faucet to everyone."
By Chris50 —
"The Pilar single handle pulldown with Touch20 technology is one of the best faucets in the market today. Not only have the great functionality of a pulldown but it has the added benefit of the touch technology. Any time your hands are too messy to touch the handle, all it takes is a small tap to start and stop the water. Perfection!! The sleek and simple design works with many different kitchen styles but will always look in style, no matter what the trend. All in all, it is an amazing faucet!!"
By Amy3 —
"This is an exquisite faucet. I finally found the faucet I have been looking for. I had a good faucet but it had a separate spray. I wanted a space safer. I changed that set thinking that the one I bought would have had the spray in one. I just assumed that that was the case. Come to find out that there was no spray. So I was on the hunt again for the faucet that fit my needs and bingo I saw your advertisement on tv and I was hooked. I had to find it. I did some research on the computer and I found were to buy it. It even has the sense to turn off if you leave it on too long; a water safer; who can ask for anything more. So Sweet! Thank you very much!"
By Encantada —
"This faucet works as well as it looks. We're very happy we bought this unit. It replaced a Moen unit & it works much better."
By Millersj —
"I renovated my kitchen 2 years ago, decided id splurge on the faucet. I did, what a treat this model has been and continues to be. Im in such a habit that everywhere I go, im touching every other faucet thinking its going to turn on by itself. Now, 3 family memebers have them, 3 of my reno clients have them. Its also a crowd pleaser at our BBQ's. My concerns about new technology regarding kitchen faucets, well there gone! A very happy Delta customer..."
By Raybear —
"This faucet not only looks fantastic but is great when preparing food. No need to worry about contaminating the faucet handle because you can simply touch it with the back of your hand."
By Sbh123 —
"Love the faucet. Wondered how long the batterries would last but they are still strong after 1.5 years. May buy touch 2Os for my bathrooms."
By FTD1 —
"I was concerned about the touch feature as I have had touch lamps before and in a few months the touch switch quit working on all of them. I have had this faucet for over a year and the touch switch works great. I have just had to replace the batteries one time. We are pleased with our purchase and would recommend this to anyone looking to buy a touch faucet."
By kmac —
"We had new counterops, sinks ,and the Delta Pilar faucet with Touch 20 technology installed March 2010. We absouloutly love the ease and functionality of it. Have not had to replace the batteries after 2 years and never thought I would need or use the soap dispenser but wouldn't want to be without it now."
By jeanna —
"...Great product - I highly recommend it! We are starting a two bath remodel now and I was really planning on using the Touch20 for both vanities also. Problem - not enough choices in style, so I ended up buying Kohler. Delta needs to make the technology available in more models for the bathrooms!"
By Sharon3355 —
"...EVERYONE that comes to my house and sees the faucet loves it! I think it is a MUST HAVE for avid cooks and bakers and anyone who wants to lessen the risk of spreading germs from icky raw meat! Not having to touch a handle means less transfer of icky germs!!!! I also love the spray feature, I use a lot less dish soap now, the spray function really makes the soap suds up! If you are on the fence about this faucet GET ONE. I am sure you will love it as much as I do!! It is SO WORTH every penny. It is also a very attractive design. It wipes clean very easily..mine is brilliant stainless so water spots dont really show on it."
By sosads —
"This faucet saves time and the added convenience and avoiding cross contamination in the kitchen is awesome. My wife tells me every day how much she loves this faucet."
By jacques —
"My kitchen remodel isn't quite done but my sink and Delta faucet were installed about a week ago. I bought this faucet for the Touch2O feature and because the style is sleek and simple. The Touch2O is awesome and will take some time to get used to as I've never had this feature before. I look forward to the ease of use during food prep when my kitchen is complete. I'm curous as to how long the 6 AA batteries will last- they are needed for the Touch2O feature. My contractor installed the faucet so I can't speak to the ease of installation. July 2012"
By mjg55 —
"I am a manager of a plumbing showroom when the touch20 feature was introduced I wanted to test it out. I loved the design of the pilar and it looks great installed. The touch20 is such a great idea it saves me so much time during everyday tasks. It may seem like you could live with out it at first but everytime I use someone elses kitchen faucet it seems inconvenient to HAVE to adjust the handle. Its a must if you have kids, so much easier to wash messy hands!"
By TEAM —
"I want to rave about this product!! We love it! I sell plumbing supplies and I hate to have call backs or product issues. I can honestly say that I have never had a complaint about the functionality or installation. Customers tell me that they love the ease of use and installers tell me it was much easier than they had first though. I have one in my own home as well and I can't believe how much of a difference it makes in my everyday life, and the lives of my customers."
By PlumbingSalesGirl —
"The technology is very simple and effective for in home use. As you become use to this a soft touch to turn it on and off you will laugh at sinks without the faucet. The Touch 2O has a nice design esthetically and has earned a place in our home as a required item. From the youngest to the oldest we all enjoy the change this product has brought into our lives. As you start to use the faucet you find yourself touching other faucets only to realize they have to be turned on and adjusted every time. Touch 2O is the only style of faucet we will put in our kitchen from now on."
By FixItDad —
"The Addison pull down faucet with touch20 technology is a stylish faucet that works great. It has the perfect look to match any style kitchen. The touch20 technology is very quick to respond and works fantastic."
By Kera2003 —
"This faucet is a must for anyone who loves to cook. Just being able to touch the faucet and it turns on is amazing technology. It's great to have my hands free while I am preparing my food."
By Jackie —
"My husband insisted on this faucet for our kitchen remodel project. I balked at the price but since he is the cook, I gave in and now 2 years later the faucet has had no problems and we both love it. Would highly recommend it."
By susie64 —
"We love to play in the sink again! Got this faucet the first day it was displayed at the store. My husband installed it as his first project after recovering from cancer treatment. It was quick work. We spent more time playing with the touch control and showing it to the grandkids than we spent washing dishes, but we really do love the features, the look of the unit, and the fact that it does not leak."
By MammyAnne —
"I purchased this facet over a year ago when remodeling my kitchen. It looks sleek, very functional and would recommend to anyone. In fact, my son bought one with the "touch" control and loves it too. Delta always stands by their products."
By Cricket —
"...One of the best features is unseen, and that is the weight that is used on the under-counter portion of the pull-out flexible water tube. The weight is in the shape of doughnut so that it "rolls" on the tube rather than clamps on thereby allowing the pull-out head to extend and retract effortlessly. Great job Delta! Now if you only had an equivalent faucet for the lavatory sink all would be well in the world. Canuck"
By Canuck —
"I absolutely LOVE my Delta Touch faucet! We remodeled our kitchen and this was a must have item for me. Our family and friends are intrigued when they see me using it for the first time. It has really been a great feature with the hands free technology while cooking chicken or meat and you want to wash your hands off without touching every surface in the kitchen to do so. The kids love it and we are considering putting the hands free bathroom faucets in for them. This is definitely one of my favorite tech pieces in the kitchen and my husband is the one into that stuff...I will not go back to a traditional faucet."
By TDow04 —
"I purchased this product not only for its convenience but for the fact that I can turn on and off the flow of water using only the back of my hand or forearm. This was very important to my wife and I as we were always worried about cross-contamination when cleaning a turkey or chicken at the sink and using our hands to turn on and off the water, This product has eliminated that problem by letting us use the back of our hand or forearm .I have been using this faucet since early 2010 and have never had a problem with it, never even having to change the batteries yet. A great innovation!"
By Barry —
"I have had my touch kitchen faucet installed for over eight months and it always works perfectly. I ordered on line and was very impressed when I opened the box - the pictures do not show the edged detail. I was intimidated to self install; however, I watched the online video and gave it a go and it was very easy! The directions in the box were easy to follow too. Honestly, I don't know how I lived without this touch faucet technology! I am very impressed with the quality of Delta and will remain a loyal customer. Next is the changing the bath faucets to the touch technology. Thank you Delta for making this faucet!!"
By Lisa —
"This faucet is a great addition to my remodeled kitchen. Love the style and so far works great. Had to change the batteries just once in little over a year and a half. Love the pull down w/MagnaTite dock. The only problem that I have found is that I think everyone's faucet has Touch20 Technology. They just don't work the same as mine!!! :)"
By DCR9 —
"I installed this faucet (with my wife's assistance) about 6 months ago. It has performed flawlessly ever since. The care in design and workmanship of this product has been apparent from the time I opened the well packed box, to the extremely well documented assembly instruction and ease of assembly. We love the stainless steel finish which looks as good today as it did when we installed it and the touch operation is a dream. I would recommend this product to anyone looking for a clean looking design for their kitchen and great performance"
By Ron01 —
"We replace our old style faucet (one faucet with two twist handles for hot and cold) with this touch product. It is so much more convenient and the touch feature is the best!! When my hands are covered with food prep 'stuff' being able to just touch with a wrist or non dirty portion of my hand to turn on the water is unbelievably cool and convenient. Love the design, it makes our kitchen appear much more modern, a major improvement. Would recommend this to everyone!!"
By sue53 —
"I have preferred Moen faucets in the past but this Delta faucet has converted me and I am not disappointed. The quality is excellent! I bought this faucet when we decided to update our kitchen. I'm glad I did. The touch feature comes in very handy. I would definitely buy another one and would recommend it."
By bethmaine —
You may choose to operate the faucet as you would any standard single-handle faucet by moving the handle to the on and off positions. You may also tap it on and off with a deliberate touch, like that of playing the piano.
You control water flow manually with the handle, just as you would operate any standard faucet. When operating the faucet in "Touch" mode, the water flow setting remains the same as the previous use.
You control the water temperature manually with the handle, just as you would any standard faucet. When operating the faucet in "Touch" mode, the water temperature setting remains the same as the previous use.
Touch2O® Technology incorporates an automatic water flow shut-off after four minutes if the water is left running with no activity.
No. The installation process is just like installing a regular pull-down faucet with an addition of one more component and a few easy-to-connect wires. Because the faucet works on batteries, there is no need to hire an electrician to assist with the installation. Even the batteries are included. With DIAMOND™ Seal Technology, the integrated supply lines mean everything is included in the box.
You know that static discharge you experience in the winter after walking on carpet and then touching a metal object? That is the result of a characteristic for storing energy in the human body called "capacitance." Touch2O® Technology uses capacitance sensors to detect human touch and turn the faucet on and off. But don't worry, it won't give you a static poke!
View Additional FAQ SectionVisit our Customer Support Center to view additional FAQs about Touch 2O® Technology.


text:
Oh, this looks fun. Junji Ito — who you may know from such horrific manga tales as The Thing That Drifted Ashore and The Enigma Of Amigara Fault — is having his cyborg land shark tale Gyo transformed into a straight-to-DVD animated film. Watch that four-minute trailer above. It's totally fucking bonkers, like some R-rated SyFy Saturday night movie.
In Gyo, a "death stench" causes sea life to rise from the deep on metal spider legs. Within the mechanics of these land sharks are dead bodies that unleash the stink. And these flatulent fish have an axe to grind with humans.
It's unclear when the English-language release will be — Twitch and ANN say February 15, but I'm not sure if that's just the Japanese release date — but we're psyched regardless.


text:
Thank you for the great feedback and comments I've received on the second in the Naked Parenting series, Naked Parenting: Guiding Kids in a Digital World. I am happy to announce that it is now available in eBook format on Amazon.
I love to hear from readers and every single review on Amazon or GoodReads or elsewhere online is genuinely appreciated. With everyone's busy lives, it means a lot that someone takes the time to review a book which helps authors.
Click here for the book trailer (I love this trailer – I makes me smile every time! Thanks, my sweet Ali.)
Click here for the original Naked Parenting: 7 Keys to Raising Kids With Confidence.


text:
A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
1672 - 1719
Historical Period:
The 18th Century
Joseph Addison (1672-1719) was educated at Oxford, served as a member of Parliament, and became widely known as an essayist, playwright, poet, and statesman. His play about Cato was very popular in the American colonies before the Revolution.


text:
Lancaster toddler choking on piece of candy saved
Police: Officer tried to open airway, took child to hospital
Lancaster police officers took a 22-month-old Lancaster boy who was choking on a piece of hard candy Tuesday morning to Lancaster General Hospital, where his airway was opened.
At 10:05 a.m., officers were called to the first block of South Water Street, and one officer tried to dislodge the piece of candy, police said.
After other officers arrived, police said they decided to take the toddler to the hospital and the officer again tried to free the piece of candy on the way to Lancaster General.
An officer stayed with the woman's mother and made arrangements to get her to the hospital, police said.
ER workers were able to remove the piece of candy, police said. The boy was later taken to Penn State Hershey Medical Center, where he remains hospitalized and is expected to make a full recovery, they said.
An ER doctor said the toddler was within a minute or two of death or long-term injury due to oxygen deprivation, police said.


text:
FREE Shipping in US 48!
Wet Wire is an exciting family of the worlds best marine rated wire, RCA Interconnects and connection blocks. Providing full signal transfer and long term reliability. With Wet Wire. You automatically get a 1 year extension on the Wet Sounds warranty when using a fully wired Wet Wire system to Wet Sounds speakers and amplifiers. Wet Wire is: true American gauge wiring standards with CEA-2015 and BC-5W2 Marine Compliance. 100% oxygen free tinned copper. Twisted pair Quad shielded RCA cables. Fusion Nickel plated marine connection blocks.
Founded in 1999, the OnlineCarStereo.com team has worked to put together one of the largest selections of car audio/stereo in this country.


text:
- This event has passed.
Bone Builders – Bennington Senior Center
September 12, 2019 @ 8:30 am - 9:30 am EDT
An event every week that begins at 8:30 am on Tuesday and Thursday, repeating until December 18, 2019
An event every week that begins at 10:00 am on Tuesday and Thursday, repeating indefinitely
The Bone Builders Exercise Program is the only Volunteer Program that we run in-house at Green Mountain RSVP. We train and place certified Instructors at community centers that donate space in each county. Most classes meet 2 times a week for 1 hour.
Bone Builders is modeled after the Growing Stronger Program or Strong Women created at Tufts University Friedman School of Nurtrition Science and Policy. It is an interactive strength-based exercise program that benefits women and men of all ages. It has been proven to help you build strength, maintain bone density, improve balance, coordination, and mobility, reduce your risk of falling, and help you maintain independence in performing activities of daily life.
For more information on Bennington County Bone Builders Classes, or to volunteer, contact the Bennington Office at 802-447-1546